UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6862
HABAKKUK E. BEN YOWEL, a/k/a B. Robinson,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of VA Department of
Corrections; MARK WARNER, Governor of
Virginia; JERRY KILGORE, Attorney General of
Virginia; MARK R. DAVIS, (Present and/or
former) Senior Assistant Attorney General of
Virginia; R. ANGELONE, (former) Director of
Virginia Department of Corrections; JAMES S.
GILMORE, III, (former) Governor of Virginia;
JOHN HAGAR, (former) Lt. Governor of Virginia;
MARK L. EARLY, Attorney General of Virginia;
FRED L. FINKBEINER, (Present and/or former)
Chairman of Virginia Board of Corrections; R.
A. YOUNG, (Present and/or former) Regional
Director of Virginia Department of
Corrections; L. W. JARVIS, (Present and/or
former) Warden of Bland Correctional Center;
G. K. WASHINGTON, Warden of Buckingham
Correctional Center; W. P. ROGERS, Regional
Administrator of Virginia Department of
Corrections; ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden of
Powhatan Correctional Center; J. COLIN
CAMPBELL, (present and/or former) Judge of the
Circuit Court of Bland County; DAVID B. BEACH,
(present and/or former) Clerk of VA Supreme
Court,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-147)
Submitted: September 3, 2004 Decided: October 26, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Habakkuk E. Ben Yowel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Habakkuk E. Ben Yowel appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) for failure to state a claim on which relief
could be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Yowel v. Johnson, No. CA-04-147 (E.D. Va. Apr.
23, 2004). We deny Yowel’s motion for appointment of counsel and
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -